South Carolina Joins the Push for Congressional Term Limits

How 12 States Are Demanding an End to Lifetime Seats in Congress

On July 8, 2025, South Carolina became the 12th state to pass a single‑subject resolution calling for a constitutional convention to impose term limits on Congress.

Yes, that South Carolina —the same state that sent Strom Thurmond to Washington for nearly half a century, the very embodiment of entrenched political power —is now saying enough is enough.

The resolution, passed by the South Carolina legislature last week, adds to a growing chorus of states demanding change through Article V of the Constitution, which allows states to call for a convention to propose amendments when Congress refuses to act. This specific resolution is narrowly focused — a crucial detail — solely on imposing term limits on members of Congress.

It’s both remarkable and fitting that the state that once crowned a Senator for life is now helping to lead the charge to dismantle the very system that made his half‑century tenure possible.

---

What the Resolution Does

So what exactly did South Carolina, and 11 states before it, just do?

They passed a single‑subject Article V resolution, a formal petition under the U.S. Constitution asking Congress to call a convention for one specific purpose: to draft an amendment imposing term limits on members of Congress.

Article V lays out two ways to amend the Constitution. The first — the path of all 27 existing amendments — starts in Congress itself. Two‑thirds of both the House and Senate must agree to propose an amendment, which then goes to the states for ratification.

However, the second path, which has never been successfully utilized, allows states to bypass Congress entirely. If two‑thirds of the states (34 total) pass matching resolutions calling for a convention on the same topic, Congress is obligated to convene one. Any amendment the convention produces would still need to be ratified by three‑fourths of the states (38) to take effect.

The detail that makes these resolutions meaningful, and why advocates insist on them being “single‑subject”, is that they narrowly focus on just one issue: term limits. Broader or ambiguous resolutions run the risk of a so‑called “runaway convention,” where delegates could propose amendments far beyond what the states intended.

South Carolina’s resolution follows this disciplined approach, aligning perfectly with the model first passed by Florida in 2016.

---

The Momentum So Far

When Florida became the first state to pass a single‑subject term‑limits resolution in 2016, it kicked off a wave of similar efforts across the country.

Why Florida? The Sunshine State already had a long history with term limits. Voters approved them for their own state legislature in 1992, and they remain popular today. Florida legislators were already living under limits themselves, so applying the same principle to Congress seemed natural. The state also had strong advocacy from U.S. Term Limits, the national group spearheading the Article V effort, and a political climate ready to channel anti-Washington frustration into action.

In the nine years since Florida’s breakthrough, 12 states have passed these focused, single‑subject resolutions: Florida, Alabama, Missouri, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, Indiana, and, as of July 8, 2025, South Carolina.

By the standards of constitutional reform, this is remarkably fast progress. Amendments often take decades or even generations to gain momentum. The 19th Amendment, which guaranteed women the right to vote, took more than 70 years from the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 to ratification in 1920. In contrast, the push for a term‑limits convention has gone from zero to 12 single‑subject states, plus seven more with multi‑subject resolutions, in just nine years.

In addition to these 12, 7 more states have passed broader, multi-subject resolutions, expressing support for term limits but lumping them in with other issues, such as a balanced budget or federal power restraints. These don’t count toward the 34‑state goal for a focused convention, but they reflect the same frustration with Washington and help build momentum.

Those states are: Georgia, Alaska, Arizona, North Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Arkansas.

What do these 19 states have in common? They are overwhelmingly conservative‑leaning, many already impose term limits at the state level, and all reflect a deep skepticism of centralized power and career politicians in Washington.

---

Why Conservatives Are Leading & Why Progressives Should Care

It’s no surprise that this movement has so far been led by conservative‑leaning, states’‑rights‑oriented legislatures.

For many on the right, term limits align perfectly with a long‑standing distrust of centralized federal power and a desire to “drain the swamp.” These states see Washington as bloated, unaccountable, and far removed from the lives of ordinary people, and they view term limits as a way to bring it to heel.

It’s also worth noting the irony. Some of the very states that sent career politicians like Strom Thurmond to Washington for decades are now at the forefront of the push to dismantle that system.

But here’s the key: while conservatives may feel like they’re “winning” this fight, the benefits of term limits would be shared by everyone. Breaking up congressional dynasties, creating opportunities for new and diverse voices, and holding lawmakers accountable for staying grounded in their communities are goals that progressives can and should embrace.

In fact, progressives have a golden opportunity here. As entrenched power is disrupted, they can focus on recruiting candidates from outside the usual political class, such as teachers, nurses, union organizers, community leaders, and scientists — people who reflect the full diversity and lived experiences of the country.

Let conservatives carry the water for now. If they succeed, we all benefit.

---

Why This Requires a Constitutional Amendment

If term limits are so popular — with polls consistently showing around 75–80% of Americans supporting them — why hasn’t Congress simply passed a law to impose them?

Because Congress won’t voluntarily limit its own power, at least not when it comes to its own seats.

Ironically, Congress has spent decades ceding vast amounts of its institutional power to the presidency — on matters such as war, trade, and emergency declarations — but when the threat becomes personal, it digs in. Term limits directly threaten the careers and influence of individual members, which is why self‑imposed limits are politically unthinkable.

Why don’t states just impose term limits on their own congressional delegations? They tried. In 1995, the Supreme Court struck down Arkansas’s term‑limits law in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, ruling that states cannot add to the Constitution’s list of qualifications for Congress. Critics of that decision and the dissenting justices argued that term limits aren’t a “qualification” in the same sense as age or residency, but rather a restriction on tenure. Still, the ruling stands.

That leaves only one path forward: an amendment to the Constitution.

Article V was written precisely for moments like this, when Congress refuses to act and the people, through their states, demand change.

---

Arguments For and Against

Why Supporters Want Term Limits

Supporters see term limits as a way to break up entrenched power and end the dynasties that keep Congress in the hands of a privileged few. They argue that knowing their time in office is limited keeps lawmakers closer to their communities, more focused on their voters and less on pleasing lobbyists and donors. Term limits, they say, also create opportunities for people from outside the usual political class.

Why Critics Oppose Them

Opponents warn that term limits deprive Congress of experienced lawmakers who understand the nuances of policy and how to effectively implement it. They argue that inexperienced legislators may rely more heavily on permanent staff and lobbyists. Some worry that term-limited lawmakers will focus more on securing lucrative post-congress careers than on serving their constituents, and that this could weaken Congress relative to the executive branch.

Why Neither Argument is Absolute

Both sides have valid points, but neither argument is absolute. Experience doesn’t vanish when a member leaves Congress; it often transitions into other roles, such as mentor, state official, or community leader. Meanwhile, long tenure often breeds arrogance, complacency, and obligations to donors and special interests. Critics worry about lobbyist influence, but the current system is already deeply dependent on lobbyists, arguably because of, not despite, long‑term incumbency.

---

Why Term Limits Aren’t Enough Alone

Term limits can open the door, but they can’t clean the entire house.

Even if imposed tomorrow, term limits wouldn’t remove the outsized influence of money in politics or repair the deep mistrust many Americans feel toward their government. They wouldn’t restore civic knowledge or rebuild the public’s sense that government actually serves them.

The same forces that keep Congress detached from voters — massive campaign spending, lobbyist influence, polarized and sensationalist media, and low civic engagement — would still be in place. Without deliberate effort to change who runs for office, how campaigns are financed, and how the public is informed, we risk simply replacing one set of insiders with another.

The media, in particular, plays a critical role in this puzzle. Decades of deregulation and the loss of the Fairness Doctrine have blurred the line between journalism and commentary, replacing fact‑gathering with outrage and partisanship. As long as voters are fed a steady diet of spin instead of reliable information, even the best reforms will struggle to gain the trust and understanding they need to succeed.

Term limits are an important step, but they are not the destination. They are a tool to clear the way for deeper, more lasting change, and it’s up to us to make sure we don’t stop there.

We’ve reported several times on political reform needed and the efforts states are making to lead the charge. See some of that reporting here:

Note: These articles are more than 45 days old and now live in the archive. Consider becoming a paid subscriber to access the full 750+ article archive and exclusive perks.

Corporate Money in Politics Under Fire: Hawaii’s Bold New Ban Explained

Banning Lobbyists Won’t Cut It—We Need a Political Revolution

Michigan Takes On Lobbyists: Does It Go Far Enough?

---

Conclusion & Call to Action

If even South Carolina — the home of Strom Thurmond, the walking embodiment of congressional entrenchment — can say enough is enough, then what’s stopping the rest of us?

Twelve states have now formally demanded term limits through single‑subject resolutions. Seven more have expressed their frustration through broader petitions. And yet Congress continues to drag its feet because it can.

But the Constitution doesn’t just empower Congress. It empowers us. Article V was written for moments like this, when the people, through their states, demand reform.

So here’s what you can do today:

Call your state legislators

Let them know you want your state to join the growing movement for a single‑subject resolution on congressional term limits.

Sample script:

Hi, my name is [Your Name] and I’m a constituent from [Your Town]. I’m calling to urge [State Senator/Representative] to support a single‑subject resolution under Article V calling for congressional term limits. Voters in our state and across the country are frustrated with career politicians who have lost touch with the people they’re supposed to represent. Term limits would help restore accountability and open Congress to fresh voices. I hope [he/she/they] will support this effort. Thank you.

If you’re unsure who your state legislators are, you can find them on Plural or Ballotpedia.

Support watchdog & grassroots organizations

Groups such as U.S. Term Limits, Common Cause, and state-level civic organizations are tracking these resolutions, advocating for reform, and educating voters. Donate if you can, share their resources, or volunteer your time.

The Founders never intended Congress to become a lifetime appointment. They believed in a government that was of the people, by the people, for the people, not for itself.

It’s time we help them remember.

Bibliography:

• “South Carolina Leads Charge for Congressional Term Limits.” Tega Cay Sun, July 7, 2025.

• Mitch Perry. “Is Eight Enough? Sitting and Former Lawmakers Debate Term Limits in the Legislature.” Florida Phoenix, May 18, 2025.

• “Florida One of the Best States for Term Limits.” U.S. Term Limits, February 10, 2016.

• “Victory: South Carolina Legislature Turns Up Heat on Congress by Passing Term Limits Resolution.” U.S. Term Limits, May 7, 2025.

• National Conference of State Legislatures. “The Term‑Limited States.” NCSL. Accessed July 11, 2025.

• “Back Home in Florida after White House Bid Ends, DeSantis Is Still Focused on Washington’s Problems.” AP News, January 29, 2024.

• “Term Limits in the United States.” Wikipedia, last modified July 11, 2025.